Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why doesn't everyone vote for UKIP? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carecup)
    Sorry duress doesn't operate in these circumstances.

    Murder carries a mandatory life sentence, which thanks to UKIP's approach will mean that you'd be in prison for the rest of your life.

    So I ask again. Do you support a one size fits all approach to murder.
    Yes. Unless in self-defence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Callahan)
    Yes. Unless in self-defence.
    So you really don't care about these people who would have to spend the rest of their life in prison thanks to this horrible turn of events that they were involved in.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carecup)
    So you really don't care about these people who would have to spend the rest of their life in prison thanks to this horrible turn of events that they were involved in.
    Life sentences should mean life sentences, but mitigating circumstances should be considered when sentencing. In the case you've mentioned, duress is involved, so the coercer should be imprisoned with a life sentence as they have committed murder through a third party.

    You don't suddenly lose common sense by having a strict legal system.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Callahan)
    Life sentences should mean life sentences, but mitigating circumstances should be considered when sentencing. In the case you've mentioned, duress is involved, so the coercer should be imprisoned with a life sentence as they have committed murder through a third party.

    You don't suddenly lose common sense by having a strict legal system.
    I just said that duress isn't available in this case due to the sanctity of life principle.

    I could carry on saying that every murder conviction carries life sentence etc but this conversation is literally going round in circles since you don't appear to acknowledge what I'm saying to you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carecup)
    I just said that duress isn't available in this case due to the sanctity of life principle.

    I could carry on saying that every murder conviction carries life sentence etc but this conversation is literally going round in circles since you don't appear to acknowledge what I'm saying to you.
    It's not your job to decide, is it?

    When someone has been proven to commit a murder, they should be imprisoned for life. And that's for clear-cut murders with no mitigating circumstances.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    UKIP is a racist party. Nigel Farage himself I don't believe is a racist, but I think the problem with a party like UKIP is it will always attract a large racist element.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    UKIP is a load of BS. Look what power does.

    Were against the EU, well leave if we were in it. Meanwhile, we will send a load of our party members to be part of the EU parliament.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Callahan)
    When someone has been proven to commit a murder, they should be imprisoned for life. And that's for clear-cut murders with no mitigating circumstances.
    And how about all the other murders where there are mitigating circumstances - or those committed under circumstances such as that put to you by Carecup?

    When you treat a person who kills under duress the same as a cold blooded mass murderer, then you do lose common sense.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    And how about all the other murders where there are mitigating circumstances - or those committed under circumstances such as that put to you by Carecup?

    When you treat a person who kills under duress the same as a cold blooded mass murderer, then you do lose common sense.
    Mitigating circumstances such as what? Apart from duress and self-defence, I can't think of many.

    And where have I said the latter? Being coerced to murder should be mitigating, in my opinion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TobaccoSmoke)
    UKIP is a racist party. Nigel Farage himself I don't believe is a racist, but I think the problem with a party like UKIP is it will always attract a large racist element.
    Your latter point may well be correct, but the party itself isn't racist. It's just a word overused and bandied around which has lost its actual meaning, due to its ubiquity.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    And how about all the other murders where there are mitigating circumstances - or those committed under circumstances such as that put to you by Carecup?

    When you treat a person who kills under duress the same as a cold blooded mass murderer, then you do lose common sense.
    Murder is murder, as long as its intentional. At the end of the day that victims right to life has been removed. Murder shouldn't be classified in different forms, oh this type is not as bad as this. That person has taken another persons freedom away and they should all be punished equally. Next ull see people classifying rape, oh thats not as bad as the other. NO it is all the same.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by radiopred)
    Murder is murder, as long as its intentional. At the end of the day that victims right to life has been removed. Murder shouldn't be classified in different forms, oh this type is not as bad as this. That person has taken another persons freedom away and they should all be punished equally. Next ull see people classifying rape, oh thats not as bad as the other. NO it is all the same.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Callahan)
    Mitigating circumstances such as what? Apart from duress and self-defence, I can't think of many.

    And where have I said the latter? Being coerced to murder should be mitigating, in my opinion.
    Lack of premeditation might be one. The state of the offender could be another as well as any acts by the victim. There have been cases where a rather sensitive person was taunted and flipped out - killing the person who taunted them. Offender has not managed to plead a defence and is convicted of murder. Is someone who loses their temper the same as a person who sets out on a mission to cause maximum carnage?

    In any event, you have already conceded the point - you have identified two scenarios which show that UKIP's "life means life" policy would produce absurd results.

    You said something along the lines of "having a strict legal system does not mean losing common sense." If your idea of a strict legal system is one based on UKIP policies such as "life meaning life", then yes, we do lose common sense.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by radiopred)
    Murder is murder, as long as its intentional. At the end of the day that victims right to life has been removed. Murder shouldn't be classified in different forms, oh this type is not as bad as this. That person has taken another persons freedom away and they should all be punished equally. Next ull see people classifying rape, oh thats not as bad as the other. NO it is all the same.
    You're completely wrong.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Lack of premeditation might be one. The state of the offender could be another as well as any acts by the victim. There have been cases where a rather sensitive person was taunted and flipped out - killing the person who taunted them. Offender has not managed to plead a defence and is convicted of murder. Is someone who loses their temper the same as a person who sets out on a mission to cause maximum carnage?

    In any event, you have already conceded the point - you have identified two scenarios which show that UKIP's "life means life" policy would produce absurd results.

    You said something along the lines of "having a strict legal system does not mean losing common sense." If your idea of a strict legal system is one based on UKIP policies such as "life meaning life", then yes, we do lose common sense.
    I'm sorry, you're talking *******s. Someone murders, that's murder, pure and simple. The case of lack of premeditation you've given is completely ridiculous.

    And really, the 'life means life' policy wouldn't produce absurd results as it'd give sentencing more meaning and worth.

    How is letting someone get off on a murder charge common sense, because that's what you're suggesting?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    You're completely wrong.
    Is he? And what gives you the right to say that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Lack of premeditation might be one. The state of the offender could be another as well as any acts by the victim. There have been cases where a rather sensitive person was taunted and flipped out - killing the person who taunted them. Offender has not managed to plead a defence and is convicted of murder. Is someone who loses their temper the same as a person who sets out on a mission to cause maximum carnage?

    In any event, you have already conceded the point - you have identified two scenarios which show that UKIP's "life means life" policy would produce absurd results.

    You said something along the lines of "having a strict legal system does not mean losing common sense." If your idea of a strict legal system is one based on UKIP policies such as "life meaning life", then yes, we do lose common sense.
    What about the victims rights, what about justice for the family. That person will still have lost their life. Murder is just as bad as long as it was intentional. If it wasn't that is manslaughter and yes the process would be better.

    This country puts too much of an emphasis on killers rights. Lets let them vote. Give then hobbies, showers, free medical and dental treatment, they have their clothes ironed, get paid for chores, watch sky, library. Weight rooms, pool tables, radios. If i were homeless id do anything to go to jail, compare that to how seniors in nursing homes are treated its heaven.

    I am not a UKIP supporter and i dont know if its u or the other guy, but the current system is not based on justice or not on rehabilitation and it needs to change


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Callahan)
    I'm sorry, you're talking *******s. Someone murders, that's murder, pure and simple. The case of lack of premeditation you've given is completely ridiculous.

    And really, the 'life means life' policy wouldn't produce absurd results as it'd give sentencing more meaning and worth.

    How is letting someone get off on a murder charge common sense, because that's what you're suggesting?
    I am not suggesting letting them off. I am saying that sentencing should reflect the crime - that is what we have been discussing this whole time.

    Besides, you conceded the point a few posts ago. As such, there is nothing more to say. Not while you spout the same old nonsense again and again.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    You're completely wrong.
    From both a utilitarianism and liberalism perspective what you are saying is not justified, At the end of the day premeditation or not as long as that persons intention was to kill X even for a second and did it they should be punished in the same way.

    Driving 20mph and kill someone - man slaughter
    Driving 50mph and kill someone - murder
    Driving 80mph and kill someone - murder

    At the end of the day the second and third were breaking the law and they should be both punished in the same way. Principally what you are doing is saying the 80mph bloke should be punished more than mr 50mph because he was faster. They were both dangerously driving and should be punished equally. It lead to the same unintended consequence.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Converse Rocker)
    Change the definition. Society has moved on man.
    Lol
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.