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

B1097 – Murder (Sentencing) Bill 2017 (Second Reading) Watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    B1097 – Murder (Sentencing) Bill 2017 (Second Reading), TSR Government
    Murder (Sentencing) Bill 2017
    A Bill to remove mandatory life sentences for the crime of murder

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    1. Removal of mandatory life sentence for murder
    1. The finding of a defendant to be guilty of murder shall no longer result in a mandatory life sentence.
    2. The Sentencing Council shall produce revised sentencing guidelines which account for this change.


    2. Commencement, Short Title and Extent
    1. This Act may be referred to as the Murder Act 2017
    2. This Act will extend to the United Kingdom; and;
    3. This Act shall come into force on 1st May 2017; except for s1(2), which shall come into force immediately.



    Notes
    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: http://eml.berkeley.edu/~jmccrary/ch...ccrary2014.pdf.

    Real Life Examples:

    Patrick Magee was released from prison in 1999, having served 14 years in prison. Originally he was sentenced to eight life sentences and a minimum tariff of 35 years.
    While in prison he completed a PhD, and now works for the charity Building Bridges for Peace, a non-profit promoting peace and conflict resolution throughout the world.
    Would Dr Magee have been able to do these things if he had spent at least another 20 years in prison? Or would that actually have been worse, isolating him completely from society, therefore preventing his rehabilitation and integration back into society?
    http://www.buildingbridgesforpeace.org/about-building-bridges-for-peace/dr-patrick-magee

    1) R v Williams [2016] - defendant (29) convicted of murder for retaliating with too much violence when a prostitute attempted to steal his phone and wallet (he pushed her to the floor and then kicked her in the head in anger).
    2) R v Golds [2016] - defendant with a lengthy history of mental illness convicted of murder of his partner after jury rejected partial defence of diminished responsibility.
    3) R v Keane [2016] - owner of a pub overreacts by repeatedly punching man in the head who assaults him when he insists on last orders.
    4) R v Gnango [2011] - man who shoots back after being shot at is convicted of murder by joint enterprise when a bullet shot by the other person kills a bystander.
    5) R v Gedraitis [2016] - man who stands by while his friend sets fire to a bag in victim's home, which burns down causing his death, convicted of murder by joint enterprise.
    6) R v Lindo [2016] - man who has been sold a stronger drug than he asked for by a dealer hits victim (a stranger) in the face with a brick while suffering from hallucinations caused by stronger drug convicted of murder.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    So not self defence
    Judged not to have a condition that leads to diminished responsibility
    Not self defence again as proven by the repeatedly
    Bandana man case is a reason to get rid of joint enterprise not change the law regarding murder
    Same if you don't like the judgement end joint enterprise
    You are responsible for what you do when you have voluntarily took drugs.

    Your example of a success story shows that just because the sentence is life that people don't always spend life in prison
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Abstain
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    As previously, I'm still for this bill. I feel the examples don't quite paint a vivid enough picture of why this is a good change however sadly, although I don't know case history to be able to give my own examples in the same style with out looking up cases (which I don't have time to do sadly as my friend needs help tonight).

    What I would say is that prison is about rehabilitation, not punishment. It's to keep society safe, but also to improve and better those who do wrong, for whatever reason, and make them ready to reenter society if/when they are ready. Sometimes a murder sentence is given, and it was not an act of evil, regardless of the horrifying consequence of the person's actions. Therefore it is better to have the leeway where the judge doesn't have to give life imprisonment, but can if it is needed
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Still voting no, personally I'd hang the gits, we certainly shouldn't be letting murderers out though, the public need to be protected from aggression.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, I do not see why anyone would be against this.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, I don't feel that anything less than life is appropriate for murder. The cases above are a better example for reforming joint enterprise.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RuWill2001)
    Aye, I do not see why anyone would be against this.
    Ooh, I dunno, maybe because it lets murderers back on the street to kill more people?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    ImageUploadedByStudent Room1484606223.969247.jpg

    Basically me right now tbh...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Ooh, I dunno, maybe because it lets murderers back on the street to kill more people?
    No, it doesn't. This is flat-out wrong. All this does is permit discretion to reduce sentences where protection of the public is not relevant (cf deterrence, rehabilitation etc).
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nay
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ToastyBread)
    Is this the leader of the MHoC's own Nazi party I am talking to ?
    Yeah, I definitely believe in a mixed protectionist economy (that's what the "zi" part means btw, "socialist."

    I also definitely believe in eugenics and racial superiority...

    /s

    Regardless of my personal political opinion (I'm very much laissez-faire, both economically and socially.) Murder and violence in general are not OK, we should be deterring people from committing violence in society not encouraging it.

    If only fascists support the death penalty that would make 74% of the UK public fascists (% in favour of capital punishment for murder in some circumstances, as per YouGov.)
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Aye , this is a well thought out bill , which has been shown to work , if someone shows they can truly reform , and isn't a psychopath , and they are on a life licence , i'm cool with them going free after 14 years , especially if they can do a lot of good ib the world like promoting peace and not killing people , i am completely fine , Dr Magee is a very good person , despite all the murders he has committed , he has aided an invaluable peace organisation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Not actually part of the political process, but personally it just sounds like you want some verdicts overturned. If the court felt that the verdict should've been manslaughter, as you seem to implying, then they would've given manslaughter. Take this bill out into the real world and you'd have victim's families crying, it's an insult to the victim's memory. Ending someone's life deserves no less than a life sentence.

    If prisons were made much more reforming, as in Scandinavia, for example, that's an idea. But this bill sounds ill thought out. If you're convicted of murder then you are deemed to have purposefully taken a life, and thus should experience a life sentence. Imagine being a family member of a victim, but the convicted murderer just got 7 years due to some mitigating circumstances
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Yeah, I definitely believe in a mixed protectionist economy (that's what the "zi" part means btw, "socialist."

    I also definitely believe in eugenics and racial superiority...

    /s
    the thing is , the nazi approach , would be to hang the lot , but the proper way would to make sure they can reform , to make sure they can , if freed because they can do good in the world , also , this bill only removes the COMPULSORY life sentence for murder , in quite a lot of murder cases , a life sentence will still be given , this just gives the judge the option , if the person shows that they regret said crime and can prove that they will spend their sentence re-educating and reforming to make a positive difference in the world , and the minimum sentence for murder will still generally be around 14-16 years , which is still a pretty hefty sentence.

    (Original post by Connor27)
    Ooh, I dunno, maybe because it lets murderers back on the street to kill more people?
    Also , people who can prove to a judge that if given a non life sentence , that they can reform and re-educate , generally wouldn't want to , once they got out , start killing more people.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ToastyBread)
    Aye , this is a well thought out bill , which has been shown to work , if someone is truly reformed , and isn't a psychopath , and they are on a life licence , i'm cool with them going free , especially if they can actually do some good in the world , like Dr Magee , he actually does more good in the world than you or I would , he has turned his life around and has proven to the parole board that if they let him free , he wasnt just going to go and murder a ton of people.
    Again, I'm not actually a political member, so forgive me if I'm incorrect - but that's emphatically not what this bill is about. This is about whether the initial sentencing should come with a mandatory sentence of life. You can't prove you're reformed at the initial sentencing.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Yeah, I definitely believe in a mixed protectionist economy (that's what the "zi" part means btw, "socialist."
    No, actually the "zi" is the second syllable of "National" as in "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei". Germans have a tendency to abbreviate the start of a compound word only. Socialists are abbreviated to "Sozis".
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    No, actually the "zi" is the second syllable of "National" as in "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei". Germans have a tendency to abbreviate the start of a compound word only. Socialists are abbreviated to "Sozis".
    Why are we debating the meaning of nazi in a thread on murder sentencing ?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    No, actually the "zi" is the second syllable of "National" as in "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei". Germans have a tendency to abbreviate the start of a compound word only. Socialists are abbreviated to "Sozis".
    I stand corrected then, thanks Mr Speaker.
 
 
 
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 21, 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.