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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mr T 999)
    Nay from me you can't be soft on murderers :noway: they kill someone they spend life in prison, simple. We should in fact increase the punishment and put them to death! Dependent of course on what type of murder they commit and how serious it is.

    The two examples are manslaughter not murder. You should go read up on the definition of murder and manslaughter clearly you don't know the difference.


    Posted from OtherWorld
    I don't agree with the death penalty, but if we absolutely must have it, wouldn't it make sense to make the method of execution as slow and painful as possible, instead of near instant death, (like neck being broken from being hung and dropped suddenly)?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlushChops)
    I don't agree with the death penalty, but if we absolutely must have it, wouldn't it make sense to make the method of execution as slow and painful as possible, instead of near instant death, (like neck being broken from being hung and dropped suddenly)?
    If pain is the objective then you torture rather than execute, slow painful executions are inefficient executions and reserved for the more serious crimes. The point of execution is to kill, not torture, and at the end of the day run of the mill executions should be as efficient and humane in their methodology as possible.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Soft on crime!
    Low energy Jeb and little Marco would love this bill!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlushChops)
    I don't agree with the death penalty, but if we absolutely must have it, wouldn't it make sense to make the method of execution as slow and painful as possible, instead of near instant death, (like neck being broken from being hung and dropped suddenly)?
    I'm guessing you don't oppose the death penalty for humanitarian reasons then..


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    Low energy Jeb and little Marco would love this bill!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And 1-for-51 Kasich!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I mean, let's be serious here. Our criminal justice system shouldn't be based on retribution, but rather improving society. I don't believe there's a particularly good justification for keeping many convicted murderers either in prison or on licence (which will still ruin their lives) after a certain point; it won't work as an additional deterrent effect, and nor will it serve to protect society in the cases of many murderers (like those described in the notes). Furthermore, the extent to which current penal methods are effective for rehabilitation is already highly questionable. Thus, what do we achieve by extending punishments? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I mean, let's be serious here. Our criminal justice system shouldn't be based on retribution, but rather improving society. I don't believe there's a particularly good justification for keeping many convicted murderers either in prison or on licence (which will still ruin their lives) after a certain point; it won't work as an additional deterrent effect, and nor will it serve to protect society in the cases of many murderers (like those described in the notes). Furthermore, the extent to which current penal methods are effective for rehabilitation is already highly questionable. Thus, what do we achieve by extending punishments? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
    But life imprisonment isn't eye for an eye... We aren't arguing for the death penalty! (Except Jammy.)

    Life Imprionment isn't retribution, it's protection from violent people. Also, please keep up, we've already told you the cases described in the notes are manslaughter.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I mean, let's be serious here. Our criminal justice system shouldn't be based on retribution, but rather improving society. I don't believe there's a particularly good justification for keeping many convicted murderers either in prison or on licence (which will still ruin their lives) after a certain point; it won't work as an additional deterrent effect, and nor will it serve to protect society in the cases of many murderers (like those described in the notes). Furthermore, the extent to which current penal methods are effective for rehabilitation is already highly questionable. Thus, what do we achieve by extending punishments? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
    If there is no element of retribution or punitative punishment, then we'll end up with large categories of offender receiving almost no sanctions at all. Women with children would almost never be incarcerated at all; in fact its hard to see them ever receiving any kind of sentence.

    If a woman with two young children commits a fraud, under a system of improving society (presumably under a utilitarian model), how would she be sanctioned?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    But life imprisonment isn't eye for an eye... We aren't arguing for the death penalty! (Except Jammy.)

    Life Imprionment isn't retribution, it's protection from violent people. Also, please keep up, we've already told you the cases described in the notes are manslaughter.
    And I've already explained why they're not, it'd be entirely legally justified to give out a murder verdict (the second somewhat more tenuously).

    Life imprisonment (even when released on licence) is eye for an eye as it's nevertheless destroying the life of the offender.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    If there is no element of retribution or punitative punishment, then we'll end up with large categories of offender receiving almost no sanctions at all. Women with children would almost never be incarcerated at all; in fact its hard to see them ever receiving any kind of sentence.

    If a woman with two young children commits a fraud, under a system of improving society (presumably under a utilitarian model), how would she be sanctioned?
    I mean, your model is too simple because it ignores the existence of a deterrence motive (we don't want women with children to think they're immune), and also more complex sentences like suspended sentences, sentences commencing at a later date, etc.

    Also, I would argue that if a criminal punishment would literally only achieve to inflict suffering on the guilty, it should be abandoned as barbaric.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The two examples would both potentially be murder. Such is the issue of a jury trial. The first is relatively uncontroversial; if you can't see how there can be an intention to cause serious bodily harm in that instance, you're simply wrong. The second is a stretch, I'll admit, but if you add one of just a few factors to it (e.g. a previous swing at the head, the defendant holding any weapon at the time, the fight being extended), you can easily find that intention. Furthermore, although Nigel correctly refers to R v Martin, there's a strong case to be made that the Court of Appeal overstretched their jurisdiction as regards that one. To those saying 'just get a good defence barrister'; while a good defence barrister may increase one's chances of walking away with a mere manslaughter conviction in these instances, it wouldn't remove the possibility of a murder verdict. Furthermore, not everyone can afford a good defence barrister; we shouldn't be putting a price on justice and liberty.

    Furthermore, none of you are arguing, at this point, that the sentence would actually be fair in the first case alone. This does not remove the option to give a life sentence for murder, and indeed, I suggest that would still be the result in the vast majority of cases. It just amends the few cases where a life sentence is a gross injustice.
    I would not agree the punishment is fair in the first example where I would support giving free passes to homeowners who intentionally kill intruders in their home, however, for the bill overall I do agree. It is not about being soft on crime but finding punishments that fit, for example, if Sgt Blackman does not have his charge downgraded to manslaughter, I would not support a mandatory life sentence for him. But this bill is inadequate on many levels, a reform to deal with questionable punishments would be to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission which called for degrees of murder to be implemented.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I would not agree the punishment is fair in the first example where I would support giving free passes to homeowners who intentionally kill intruders in their home, however, for the bill overall I do agree. It is not about being soft on crime but finding punishments that fit, for example, if Sgt Blackman does not have his charge downgraded to manslaughter, I would not support a mandatory life sentence for him. But this bill is inadequate on many levels, a reform to deal with questionable punishments would be to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission which called for degrees of murder to be implemented.
    This is a fair comment. It is something I would suggest our SS Justice DMcGovern take a look at; however, in the mean time, I ask you to recognise that this is better than the status quo.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This is a fair comment. It is something I would suggest our SS Justice DMcGovern take a look at; however, in the mean time, I ask you to recognise that this is better than the status quo.
    Given the lack of certain examples of murder, not these examples where there is a strong case for manslaughter, and the differing views of judges when it comes to sentences for other crimes, I am not convinced this is better. If this bill is going to pass, it needs to include more guidelines about when different sentences would be applicable in different cases; I do not support giving carte blanche to judges to make it up.

    The SofS for Justice tried arguing there were degrees of murder in the UK two weeks ago, and has not done a lot to prove his capability when it comes to writing what will be a complex bill to make the biggest change to Britain's legal system in decades.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Given the lack of certain examples of murder, not these examples where there is a strong case for manslaughter, and the differing views of judges when it comes to sentences for other crimes, I am not convinced this is better. If this bill is going to pass, it needs to include more guidelines about when different sentences would be applicable in different cases; I do not support giving carte blanche to judges to make it up.

    The SofS for Justice tried arguing there were degrees of murder in the UK two weeks ago, and has not done a lot to prove his capability when it comes to writing what will be a complex bill to make the biggest change to Britain's legal system in decades.
    This does not give carte blanche to judges (although they are in a more appropriate position to do so generally than legislators); rather, the Sentencing Council would produce revised guidelines.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Nay from me.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If we look at hypothetical situation 1, I'm not a judicial expert, but there is laws; or ways you can attack the murderer, if you feel that your life, or your families life is in danger, then I believe you are legally allowed to use all force deemed necessary to protect yourself.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If any burglar violated my NAP I'd wanna kill them without punishment.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The two examples would both potentially be murder. Such is the issue of a jury trial. The first is relatively uncontroversial; if you can't see how there can be an intention to cause serious bodily harm in that instance, you're simply wrong. The second is a stretch, I'll admit, but if you add one of just a few factors to it (e.g. a previous swing at the head, the defendant holding any weapon at the time, the fight being extended), you can easily find that intention. Furthermore, although Nigel correctly refers to R v Martin, there's a strong case to be made that the Court of Appeal overstretched their jurisdiction as regards that one. To those saying 'just get a good defence barrister'; while a good defence barrister may increase one's chances of walking away with a mere manslaughter conviction in these instances, it wouldn't remove the possibility of a murder verdict. Furthermore, not everyone can afford a good defence barrister; we shouldn't be putting a price on justice and liberty.

    Furthermore, none of you are arguing, at this point, that the sentence would actually be fair in the first case alone. This does not remove the option to give a life sentence for murder, and indeed, I suggest that would still be the result in the vast majority of cases. It just amends the few cases where a life sentence is a gross injustice.
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    It doesn't have to have been written or accepted by a member who got a law degree from Oxford at all, Nigel is purely having a dig at a certain member with out any information on the matter. It is true we have a member who has been to Oxford, and got a law degree there, however that doesn't mean he wrote this bill, and as he is neither Labour leader or socialist leader he doesn't have to have approved this bill to be released.

    In any case I do agree with this bill, the examples given may not be the best, but this bill doesn't seek to stop life sentences, merely give judges greater say over the sentences given out in the case of a verdict of guilty of murder in cases where the punishment of the crime, under the circumstances, may not need result in life imprisonment. I also absolutely reject any such calls as I saw one person say, unsure if they are a member of the house or not as I do not think I recognised their name, for the reinstatement of the death penalty, I see the use of such a measure as barbaric and unfitting of modern society.

    For anyone looking for an example of others getting absolutely schooled I'd like to refer them to Exhibit A and Exhibit B, kindly donated by my right honourable friends the the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    aye
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam9317)
    If we look at hypothetical situation 1, I'm not a judicial expert, but there is laws; or ways you can attack the murderer, if you feel that your life, or your families life is in danger, then I believe you are legally allowed to use all force deemed necessary to protect yourself.
    You are entitled to use reasonable force (and thus make out a self-defence defence). What's reasonable is a question of fact for a jury to interpret (even after the jury reforms which have been made in TSRland). It's entirely possible that this could result in a murder conviction.
 
 
 
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: January 16, 2017
  • 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?
  • 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.