Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    The idea of automatic life sentencing is barbaric and especially without parole.
    It is near the same to a death sentence.
    So what you want to do is get rid of something that is only used in exceptional circumstances?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    Hit the nail on the head.
    (Original post by DanE1998)
    If you murder you should receive life in prison - the current statutory sentence provides a murder sentence which is fair and just.

    Nay
    How?

    This means that persons found guilty of murder are no longer automatically sentenced to life - but does not remove the possibility of judges doing so where it is found to be appropriate nor their ability to do so.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So what you want to do is get rid of something that is only used in exceptional circumstances?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, we're getting rid of mandatory life sentences.

    Which are not only used in exceptional circumstances, hence the "mandatory".
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    This means that persons found guilty of murder are no longer automatically sentenced to life - but does not remove the possibility of judges doing so where it is found to be appropriate.
    This greater flexibility will allow for more appropriate sentencing to the goals thereof - there is scant evidence that greater sentences produce a greater deterrent effect.

    It also encourages rehabilitation over punishment, the transition of which will be made easier through this.
    I suspect the opposition to this bill is largely emotive rather than practical (murder!!! - bad! - baaaaad) and so I (as someone who's advocated tougher sentencing in some cases) shall, on a purely provisional basis, support the bill. This is based on the understanding that sentencing should take circumstance and context into consideration and that codified law is rarely as good a judge as a judge. If I am able to vote when this goes to Division I shall vote Aye. It was purely emotional arguments that nearly stopped my party giving prisoner's the vote after all.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I suspect the opposition to this bill is largely emotive rather than practical (murder!!! - bad! - baaaaad) and so I (as someone who's advocated tougher sentencing in some cases) shall, on a purely provisional basis, support the bill. This is based on the understanding that sentencing should take circumstance and context into consideration and that codified law is rarely as good a judge as a judge. If I am able to vote when this goes to Division I shall vote Aye. It was purely emotional arguments that nearly stopped my party giving prisoner's the vote after all.
    Good argument. I did laugh at the emotive bit

    You should see what the Norwegians have been doing in their prison systems it's amazing: http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-no...4-12?r=US&IR=T
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    There are very few cases in which a murderer serving 25, rather than 10 years leads to any tangible benefit.
    Proof?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Proof?
    I appeal to common sense. If someone is deterred by a 25-year prison sentence, chances are that they're also going to be deterred by a 10-year one. There is significant evidence that prison in the UK does not play a good rehabilitative role (tbh I'd like there to be no mandatory incarceration for murder but I think that might be going too far for this House), and IIRC, recidivism rates for murder have been very low in the UK, though I could be wrong, and my source would be a book rather than a web page so feel free to prove me wrong on this point.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    No, we're getting rid of mandatory life sentences.

    Which are not only used in exceptional circumstances, hence the "mandatory".
    If you want to reduce the sentences I suggest you actually do so because, as I stated earlier, something tells me that the effect of this bill would be a change in the wording of the guidelines with the same effect rather than a substantive change in the guidelines.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Essentially, however, the core argument is that judges should be allowed flexibility when it comes to sentencing. Heinous cases can still be given life without parole. However, where someone, in a fit of rage upon finding out that their spouse has cheated, kills their spouse, not much is achieved with a longer rather than a shorter sentence. There is no reason to have a MLS in those situations.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I don't really care about what effect longer sentences have as i consider murderers to be inferior forms of life who should never be forgiven.

    Backing this bill while not setting a minimum threshold is an absurdly wet notion.

    I'm a Tory, i value law and order and have no time for your hippy anarchist views.

    This is a hell Nay.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If you want to reduce the sentences I suggest you actually do so because, as I stated earlier, something tells me that the effect of this bill would be a change in the wording of the guidelines with the same effect rather than a substantive change in the guidelines.
    A mandatory life sentence places power in the hands of the parole board rather than judges. Parole boards are essentially unqualified autocrats for the most part, whereas judges are professionally trained to assess this sort of thing.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I appeal to common sense. If someone is deterred by a 25-year prison sentence, chances are that they're also going to be deterred by a 10-year one. There is significant evidence that prison in the UK does not play a good rehabilitative role (tbh I'd like there to be no mandatory incarceration for murder but I think that might be going too far for this House), and IIRC, recidivism rates for murder have been very low in the UK, though I could be wrong, and my source would be a book rather than a web page so feel free to prove me wrong on this point.
    Can we not also appeal to common sense and say that 10 years deters no more than 10, which in turn deters no more than 8,..., which in turn deters no more than no penalty
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    The idea of automatic life sentencing is barbaric and especially without parole.
    It is near the same to a death sentence.
    You do realise that a 'life sentence' does not equal life imprisonment?

    Mandatory life sentence for murder =/= whole life tariff.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Can we not also appeal to common sense and say that 10 years deters no more than 10, which in turn deters no more than 8,..., which in turn deters no more than no penalty
    10 is just a number pulled out of my arse for being a 'long ****ing time'. I suspect the marginal differences between 10 and 25 years are substantially less even than the differences between 10 and 5.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Essentially, however, the core argument is that judges should be allowed flexibility when it comes to sentencing. Heinous cases can still be given life without parole. However, where someone, in a fit of rage upon finding out that their spouse has cheated, kills their spouse, not much is achieved with a longer rather than a shorter sentence. There is no reason to have a MLS in those situations.
    Not much is achieved with a longer sentence rather than a shorter sentence? Rehabilitation is a part, but not the whole story in terms of sentencing. You also have to factor in punishment, deterrence and protecting the public.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Not much is achieved with a longer sentence rather than a shorter sentence? Rehabilitation is a part, but not the whole story in terms of sentencing. You also have to factor in punishment, deterrence and protecting the public.
    I have addressed deterrence and protecting the public. Punishment in itself is not a valid goal - when nobody else gains anything from it, there is no need to cause suffering.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I have addressed deterrence and protecting the public. Punishment in itself is not a valid goal - when nobody else gains anything from it, there is no need to cause suffering.
    Punishment teaches you what behaviour is accepted by society and what behaviour will lead you to suffer.

    If you commit misconduct at work, you will be punished by possibly receiving a warning or having your pay docked. If you misbehave at school, you will be punished by receiving detention to show you what is acceptable behaviour. Why shouldn't the state be entitled to punish criminals in the same way?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    You do realise that a 'life sentence' does not equal life imprisonment?

    Mandatory life sentence for murder =/= whole life tariff.
    It is still abhorrent. There should be a focus - rather than punishment - on rehabilitation and preventative detention.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Punishment teaches you what behaviour is accepted by society and what behaviour will lead you to suffer.

    If you commit misconduct at work, you will be punished by possibly receiving a warning or having your pay docked. If you misbehave at school, you will be punished by receiving detention to show you what is acceptable behaviour. Why shouldn't the state be entitled to punish criminals in the same way?
    What you've just said translates to 'it acts as a deterrent'.

    Let's assume that a person believes they will be punished, and accordingly they are affected in their decisions in exactly the same way as if they were to be actually punished (isolating the relevant factor) - do you believe they ought to suffer, even though their suffering achieves precisely nothing but their suffering?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I appeal to common sense. If someone is deterred by a 25-year prison sentence, chances are that they're also going to be deterred by a 10-year one. There is significant evidence that prison in the UK does not play a good rehabilitative role (tbh I'd like there to be no mandatory incarceration for murder but I think that might be going too far for this House), and IIRC, recidivism rates for murder have been very low in the UK, though I could be wrong, and my source would be a book rather than a web page so feel free to prove me wrong on this point.
    Do you realise that human life is widely regarded as the greatest value that is available to us? I don't mean to be rude but I must say I find the emphasised statement utterly ridiculous and although I generally want people to spare me their life story, I'd honestly like to know yours because it must have been very bizarre.

    This twisted idea of justice that is being presented by you and some of your lefty colleagues on this site is completely incompatible with the values of any sensible average person on this planet and I do not understand how this is possible considering your reported education. If you want to rebel against the society, get a fedora and a tattoo or something… :dontknow:

    Anyway, while I can find no reliable statistic on murder, this document reports that the proven recidivism rate for offences against the person is between 22 and 29 per cent, which is arguably a lot. There is also a huge difference between 10 and 25 years if one's already 25 and looking at a life expectancy of 70 years.

    What's the name of the book?
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 29, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.