Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

B976 - Murder (Sentencing) Bill watch

Announcements
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    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.
    It is my personal view that if you take someone's life - you should receive life in prison BECAUSE with the current systems such as parole etc aren't good enough in my opinion to facilitate some other option. However, I am open to persuasion
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by DanE1998)
    It is my personal view that if you take someone's life - you should receive life in prison BECAUSE with the current systems such as parole etc aren't good enough in my opinion to facilitate some other option. However, I am open to persuasion
    a person spending life in prison is a drain on the state. we pay for them to rot their life away doing nothing. That's retribution not justice
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Duplicate. Ignore.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    a person spending life in prison is a drain on the state. we pay for them to rot their life away doing nothing. That's retribution not justice
    Propose to me a meaningful, accountable and secure alternative
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by DanE1998)
    Propose to me a meaningful, accountable and secure alternative
    rehabilitation. teach them to intergrate with society and have a positive impact.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    rehabilitation. teach them to integrate with society and have a positive impact.
    I understand the concept of rehabilitation, that is not what I asked - how would we do this meaningfully, accountably, secure and safely?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by DanE1998)
    I understand the concept of rehabilitation, that is not what I asked - how would we do this meaningfully, accountably, secure and safely?
    look at the Norwegian model.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Which is what life on licence (with a minimum term of imprisonment) achieves. A person who commits murder needs to be made an example of for deterrence, and this is achieved in a humane way by ensuring they are on licence for life after undergoing a period of imprisonment. The public also need to be protected given that this person committed such a heinous act, which is achieved by life on licence in that they can be recalled to prison if they pose a risk.
    The recidivism rates for released prisoners in the USA is 60% compared with 50% in the UK. The report attributed the lower recidivism rate in the UK to a focus on rehabilitation and education of prisoners compared with the US focus on punishment, deterrence and keeping potentially dangerous individuals away from society.

    The current law strikes the right balance. What possible purpose could removing life on licence achieve other than satisfying some woolly notion that rehabilitation = complete freedom with the odd training course in how to manage anger with yoga and meditation?
    Really?

    Then let's look at Norway's progressive rehabilitative prison system:

    When criminals in Norway leave prison, they stay out. It has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%.

    Norway also has a relatively low level of crime compared to the US, according to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The majority of crimes reported to police there are theft-related incidents, and violent crime is mostly confined to areas with drug trafficking and gang problems.

    Based on that information, it's safe to assume Norway's criminal justice system is doing something right. Few citizens there go to prison, and those who do usually go only once.
    So how does Norway accomplish this feat? The country relies on a concept called "restorative justice," which aims to repair the harm caused by crime rather than punish people. This system focuses on rehabilitating prisoners.

    Take a look at Halden Prison, and you'll see what we mean. The 75-acre facility maintains as much "normalcy" as possible. That means no bars on the windows, kitchens fully equipped with sharp objects, and friendships between guards and inmates. For Norway, removing people's freedom is enough of a punishment.

    Like many prisons, Halden seeks to prepare inmates for life on the outside with vocational programs: woodworking, assembly workshops, and even a recording studio.Halden isn't an anomaly either. Bastoy prison is also quite nice.


    As Bastoy prisoner governor Arne Wilson, who is also a clinical psychologist, explained to The Guardian:
    "In closed prisons we keep them locked up for some years and then let them back out, not having had any real responsibility for working or cooking. In the law, being sent to prison is nothing to do with putting you in a terrible prison to make you suffer. The punishment is that you lose your freedom. If we treat people like animals when they are in prison they are likely to behave like animals. Here we pay attention to you as human beings."
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    " No , No , No " I will not support a simple slap on the wrist for murder and the destruction of friends and families life ..... In fact the punishment for murder should be death .....
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    " No , No , No " I will not support a simple slap on the wrist for murder and the destruction of friends and families life ..... In fact the punishment for murder should be death .....
    Why? Surely there should be allowances for murders like crimes of passion and miscarriages of justice.

    Look at Noway's progressive prison system:

    Bastoy prisoner governor Arne Wilson, who is also a clinical psychologist, explained toThe Guardian:
    "In closed prisons we keep them locked up for some years and then let them back out, not having had any real responsibility for working or cooking.
    In the law, being sent to prison is nothing to do with putting you in a terrible prison to make you suffer. The punishment is that you lose your freedom.
    If we treat people like animals when they are in prison they are likely to behave like animals. Here we pay attention to you as human beings."

    When criminals in Norway leave prison, they stay out. It has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%.
    Meanwhile the US, who focus on punishment and retribution, have a recidivism rate of 76.6%.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Why? Surely there should be allowances for murders like crimes of passion and miscarriages of justice.

    Look at Noway's progressive prison system:

    Bastoy prisoner governor Arne Wilson, who is also a clinical psychologist, explained toThe Guardian:
    "In closed prisons we keep them locked up for some years and then let them back out, not having had any real responsibility for working or cooking.
    In the law, being sent to prison is nothing to do with putting you in a terrible prison to make you suffer. The punishment is that you lose your freedom.
    If we treat people like animals when they are in prison they are likely to behave like animals. Here we pay attention to you as human beings."

    When criminals in Norway leave prison, they stay out. It has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%.
    Meanwhile the US, who focus on punishment and retribution, have a recidivism rate of 76.6%.
    Are you seriously saying that Murder is compassionate ? And it's wrong to punish people who break the law ?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Why? Surely there should be allowances for murders like crimes of passion and miscarriages of justice.

    Look at Noway's progressive prison system:

    Bastoy prisoner governor Arne Wilson, who is also a clinical psychologist, explained toThe Guardian:
    "In closed prisons we keep them locked up for some years and then let them back out, not having had any real responsibility for working or cooking.
    In the law, being sent to prison is nothing to do with putting you in a terrible prison to make you suffer. The punishment is that you lose your freedom.
    If we treat people like animals when they are in prison they are likely to behave like animals. Here we pay attention to you as human beings."

    When criminals in Norway leave prison, they stay out. It has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%.
    Meanwhile the US, who focus on punishment and retribution, have a recidivism rate of 76.6%.
    This is an irrelevent point, as I agree totally with shifting towards a rehab based prison system, but this bill doesn't do this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The perception which is relevant is not that of the defendant, but rather the reasonable man. You also misunderstand intent. Hitting someone with a metal object, knowing that doing so may cause serious bodily harm is, in the eyes of the law, intent to cause serious bodily harm.
    I think you're grossly misinterpreting the law.

    What is ‘the reasonable man’ and what kind of a stupid assumption would that be given the huge range of differences between individuals? We can't possibly make conclusions about the use of reasonable vs. disproportionate force based on some subjective mean. It is obvious that a thin weak female must evaluate the same situation differently (i.e. feel more threatened and required to use defence with a greater potential effect, e.g. a weapon, in order to neutralise the threat) than a trained male soldier who could neutralise the same threat with bare hands, and as I said, the CPS clearly state that one is not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force. I believe this judgement would be up to the jury if the case went to trial.

    https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/...seholders.html
    http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/...er-defence-law

    As for intent, almost anything may cause seriousl bodily harm. One could tackle a person and kill it by accident if its head hit a sharp corner, or break one's own bones in doing so because human body contains many weak spots and the outcomes are practically unpredictable.

    I understand that the major current precedent concerning murder within English law happens to be R v Moloney and intention is generally defined in terms of foresight of particular consequences and a desire to act or fail to act so that those consequences occur.

    “After Lord Steyn's judgment in R v Woollin (affirmed in R v Matthews & Alleyne [2004]) it is clear that, based on R v Moloney, foresight of death or grievous bodily harm as a mere probability is insufficient. This confirms R v Nedrick subject to the substitution of ‘infer’ for ‘find’.”

    “Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's action and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case.”

    The prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty and appreciated that such was the case, which would be very difficult in the setting that you described. The defence could argue that the intention and reasonable prediction was to merely incapacitate the intruder by knocking him unconscious, thereby preventing the possibility of retaliation since a blow to another part of the body was unlikely to prevent further damage of property or allow the householder to make a citizen's arrest. In fact, it could provoke an attack against the homeowner. Considering the amount of blows to the head with blunt metal objects with practically no adverse effects other than unconsciousness depicted in the media (films, television shows, etc.) nowadays, one would hardly face issues.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    It would take out the involvement of the Justice or Home Secretary in determining when a person is released, and bring some certainty to the relatives of the victims as to how long the convicted murderer would be likely to be imprisoned. There would not be the campaigning for release of those convicted, such as has happened in a few cases, which rakes up the crime, gets a criminal publicity, and may bring distress to those who knew the person murdered.

    Always assuming that the sentence of life was replaced in most cases. If it was accompanied by a minimum sentence then I might support the Bill.
    It would be accompanied by a minimum sentence in most cases (every jail sentence comes with a minimum sentence, or 'tariff' - even if that's the full sentence), it's just that that would be for the judge to decide.

    FWIW I don't think I can get enough support for this for it to be worth continuing with after this reading unfortunately. Seems TSR is full of reactionary old farts.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by EricAteYou)
    A life sentence in the UK isn't life anyway - it's far less than what is considered life in other countries.

    For that reason, nay.
    Hear hear.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    This is an irrelevent point, as I agree totally with shifting towards a rehab based prison system, but this bill doesn't do this.
    Generally, sentences in the UK are far too high for effective rehabilitation at present. This is done, in part, with minimum sentences. This Bill is a first step towards rehabilitation of murderers. The rest can be done elsewhere.

    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I think you're grossly misinterpreting the law.

    What is ‘the reasonable man’ and what kind of a stupid assumption would that be given the huge range of differences between individuals? We can't possibly make conclusions about the use of reasonable vs. disproportionate force based on some subjective mean. It is obvious that a thin weak female must evaluate the same situation differently (i.e. feel more threatened and required to use defence with a greater potential effect, e.g. a weapon, in order to neutralise the threat) than a trained male soldier who could neutralise the same threat with bare hands, and as I said, the CPS clearly state that one is not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force. I believe this judgement would be up to the jury if the case went to trial.

    https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/...seholders.html
    http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/...er-defence-law

    As for intent, almost anything may cause seriousl bodily harm. One could tackle a person and kill it by accident if its head hit a sharp corner, or break one's own bones in doing so because human body contains many weak spots and the outcomes are practically unpredictable.

    I understand that the major current precedent concerning murder within English law happens to be R v Moloney and intention is generally defined in terms of foresight of particular consequences and a desire to act or fail to act so that those consequences occur.

    “After Lord Steyn's judgment in R v Woollin (affirmed in R v Matthews & Alleyne [2004]) it is clear that, based on R v Moloney, foresight of death or grievous bodily harm as a mere probability is insufficient. This confirms R v Nedrick subject to the substitution of ‘infer’ for ‘find’.”

    “Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's action and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case.”

    The prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty and appreciated that such was the case, which would be very difficult in the setting that you described. The defence could argue that the intention and reasonable prediction was to merely incapacitate the intruder by knocking him unconscious, thereby preventing the possibility of retaliation since a blow to another part of the body was unlikely to prevent further damage of property or allow the householder to make a citizen's arrest. In fact, it could provoke an attack against the homeowner. Considering the amount of blows to the head with blunt metal objects with practically no adverse effects other than unconsciousness depicted in the media (films, television shows, etc.) nowadays, one would hardly face issues.
    I agree with how you construe 'intention'. Your problem is that you're taking 'serious bodily harm' too stringently. Serious bodily harm is actually pretty broad - almost anything which knocks a person unconscious will amount to 'serious bodily harm'. 'Serious bodily harm' equates to 'grievous bodily harm', contrasting 'actual bodily harm'. So, for instance, anything which arrives at a virtual certainty of a fractured skull, or even a broken nose (hitting someone over the head with a metal pipe, for instance), would satisfy the mens rea requirement of murder. Possibly hitting someone's leg with a metal pipe would not, but at that point it's rather difficult to see how they're going to die.

    Also, the 'and they must have appreciated that this was the case' element is kind of trite. Realistically it's absurdly difficult to convince a jury that a defendant wouldn't have appreciated that something which would clearly cause serious bodily harm to them would do so. Although we have limited the impact of juries in TSR-land (I remember you voted in favour of that one, cheers), they still have the fact-finding capabilities requisite here.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Are you seriously saying that Murder is compassionate ? And it's wrong to punish people who break the law ?
    People who break the law should be punished if and insofar as it achieves some social goal. Where there is no deterrent/protection/rehabilitation/compensation effect, retribution for the sake of retribution is barbaric.

    An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
    Offline

    19
    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.
    That is getting into manslaughter area which doesn't have a mandatory life sentence.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    That is getting into manslaughter area which doesn't have a mandatory life sentence.
    Only if it amounts to 'loss of control', which is harder to prove than you might think.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Only if it amounts to 'loss of control', which is harder to prove than you might think.
    So there are measures in place for the situations you are describing, so why should we reduce the sentence of someone who deliberately ends the life of another person?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?

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

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