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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    'Very unlikely' is a massive, massive overstatement. All it takes is a single aggravating factor (or indeed, vigilante jury) for that scenario to fall plumply within the MR of murder.



    Punishment and retribution are not in themselves valid reasons for criminal punishment because all they achieve is the suffering of the guilty. Causing people to suffer is prima facie bad even if they've done something wrong. I'd recommend reading this:
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Punishment-.../dp/0199534780 (you should be able to find a pdf fairly easily).

    If you can show me how the victim's family's lives are improved by a mandatory life sentence, I'll consider your point.



    Note that this doesn't remove the discretion to award a life sentence, and indeed, I foresee that this will still be the case in most murder cases. The difference between a life sentence and a 20 year sentence won't operate as an additional deterrent. I disagree that 'all criminals must be punished in some way' - I'd say 'criminals should be punished if and insofar as the punishment serves a purpose'. I'm not saying that criminals should be let off - hence not advocating an absolute discharge - but it is fairly clear that our current criminal justice system is too harsh due to inflexibility in at leat some cases.

    Regarding the family of the victim, I'd argue that their views should be largely ignored, as they will be clouded with anger and therefore likely irrational. Rather, we should take their interests into account, the same as any other member of society, in designing a criminal justice strategy.
    Another reason for imprisonment is to keep dangerous people out of society. By committing the crime, they violated the trust of society by harming it, so for the well-being of society, they must be kept away forever to ensure safety and security is maximised.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, life for a life.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Another reason for imprisonment is to keep dangerous people out of society. By committing the crime, they violated the trust of society by harming it, so for the well-being of society, they must be kept away forever to ensure safety and security is maximised.
    Yep, you're definitely the libertarian and we're the draconians cos we'd prefer that cyclists were less likely to die in an accident.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I mean, you understand that the definition provided by the OED isn't actually the law right?

    To clear things up for you, under English law, a person is held to have committed murder (I'm simplifying this a bit by removing reference to some exceptions which are irrelevant for our purposes) when they cause the death of another person (the actus reus of the offence) with the intention to either kill, or to cause serious bodily harm to that person (the mens rea). The requisite mens rea of intending to cause serious bodily harm can potentially be found in both of these cases (especially if, for instance, you add the aggravating factor to the second case that Dave is wearing knuckledusters). I'm going to add more actual examples in the second reading if the rest of the party approve.
    Providing examples will not work because there will always be an argument about circumstances that decide if something is murder. What you need to provide are case references to cases where something was considered murder. If you provide real life cases where you think there has been unjust sentencing which this bill would change, you have a stronger argument to support this bill. Finding examples of cases should not be difficult when there are Innocence Projects operating in Britain with law students doing pro bono experience reading the books.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Yep, you're definitely the libertarian and we're the draconians cos we'd prefer that cyclists were less likely to die in an accident.
    No, you would prefer the individuals in society are looked after by a government needing to make wearing a helmet a law for the brainless to realise wearing a helmet is a good idea.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, you would prefer the idiots in society are looked after by a government needing to make wearing a helmet a law for the brainless to realise wearing a helmet is a good idea.
    Tbf the bill only gives local councils the power to implement the law (the poor wording was due to several internal rewrites and will be corrected for future readings).

    And I don't think the likes of mobbsy and the multitude who neglect to take the proper precautions are 'idiots'.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Tbf the bill only gives local councils the power to implement the law (the poor wording was due to several internal rewrites and will be corrected for future readings).

    And I don't think the likes of mobbsy and the multitude who neglect to take the proper precautions are 'idiots'.
    Well tbh most people don't wanna put them on because it's uncool or unfashionable or something

    Posted from OtherWorld
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I am of the opinion that mandatory sentencing of any kind undermines the first part of the phrase 'justice system'. Judges should have greater discretion


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    I am of the opinion that mandatory sentencing of any kind undermines the first part of the phrase 'justice system'. Judges should have greater discretion


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Surely, as a "liberal" sentencing of any kind undermines the "justice" in "justice system" :confused :

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    I am of the opinion that mandatory sentencing of any kind undermines the first part of the phrase 'justice system'. Judges should have greater discretion


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Does that include maximum sentences?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Surely, as a "liberal" sentencing of any kind undermines the "justice" in "justice system" :confused :

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Now that statement is just silly. If the sentence was a lollipop and a pat on the back, of course I would be in favor.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Does that include maximum sentences?
    Yes. Crimes need to be considered on an individual basis.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Tbf the bill only gives local councils the power to implement the law (the poor wording was due to several internal rewrites and will be corrected for future readings).

    And I don't think the likes of mobbsy and the multitude who neglect to take the proper precautions are 'idiots'.
    You realise this is the Murder Sentencing bill, right?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    You realise this is the Murder Sentencing bill, right?
    I do, but I was replying to a comment about the other bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I do, but I was replying to a comment about the other bill.
    Okay, it's just that this did not indicate that:

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Another reason for imprisonment is to keep dangerous people out of society. By committing the crime, they violated the trust of society by harming it, so for the well-being of society, they must be kept away forever to ensure safety and security is maximised.
    Yep, you're definitely the libertarian and we're the draconians cos we'd prefer that cyclists were less likely to die in an accident.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Okay, it's just that this did not indicate that:
    What are you talking about?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    What are you talking about?
    What?

    I'm confused
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    What?

    I'm confused
    You quoted a quote by me... which is not something I said.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You quoted a quote by me... which is not something I said.
    Yeah, it looked like UU commented on this bill, and then it looked like you confused it with him making a comment on the other bill. I probably misread it.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I can see the reasoning behind this idea, but I do believe that taking someone's right to life through an act of murder should result in the perpetrator permanently losing their right to liberty.
 
 
 
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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.