V1389 - The Law Reform (Murder) Bill 2018 Watch

Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many as are of that opinion, Aye (31)
63.27%
On the contrary, No (9)
18.37%
Abstain (9)
18.37%
This discussion is closed.
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#1
The Law Reform (Murder) Bill 2018, TSR National Conservative Party, Seconded by Saracen’s Fez MP (LAB)





A
BILL
TO

Incorporate certain Law Commission recommendations into the law of murder.




BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: Definitions
(1) “Express malice aforethought”, for the purposes of this Act, shall mean direct or oblique intent to kill.
(2) “Implied malice aforethought”, for the purposes of this Act, shall mean direct or oblique intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
(3) “Reasonable creature in being”, for the purposes of this Act, shall mean any human of an independent circulatory system.

2: Murder, first degree
(1) Any person who unlawfully kills a reasonable creature in being, under the Queen’s Peace, with express malice aforethought shall be guilty of an offence and shall be convicted, on indictment, to life imprisonment.
(2) The partial defences to murder will be available to defendants charged with this offence.
(a)If a partial defence is successful, the defendant will be convicted of second degree murder.

3: Murder, second degree
(1) Any person who unlawfully kills a reasonable creature in being, under the Queen’s Peace, with implied malice aforethought shall be guilty of an offence and shall be convicted, on indictment, to imprisonment up to and including life
(a)Partial defences are not available for this offence.

5: Voluntary Manslaughter
(1) No court may convict a defendant of voluntary manslaughter if any partial defences, set out by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, are successful. Such persons will instead be convicted of second degree murder.
(2) Involuntary manslaughter offences will remain unaffected.

5: Sentencing Council
(1) The Sentencing Council shall make the necessary amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines.

6: Commencement, Extent and Short Title
(1) This Act shall come into force upon Royal Assent.
(2) This Act shall extend to England and Wales.
(3) This Act shall be known as the Law Reform (Murder) Act 2018.


NOTES:
Spoiler:
Show



This Bill enacts the recommendations of the Law Commission[1] to separate the common law offence of murder to enable a fairer distribution of justice. It is unjust to impose a mandatory life sentence on defendants who did not intend to kill but intended to cause grievous bodily harm. The sentencing must reflect the severity of one's actions and whilst murder is very, very severe and must be punished, there are differing levels of severity for the offence. Furthermore, this brings murder onto a statutory footing allowing for more certainty in the law. This also cuts voluntary manslaughter in favour of second degree murder in the event of a successful defence under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009[2].

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.go...28782/0030.pdf
[2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/contents






0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 months ago
#2
This has my vote.
0
Joel 96
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 months ago
#3
"any human of an independent circulatory system"

How does this not apply to human fetuses?
1
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 months ago
#4
(Original post by Joel 96)
"any human of an independent circulatory system"

How does this not apply to human fetuses?
Murder currently doesn't apply to human foetuses. In this respect, the bill merely codifies the current common law.
0
Joel 96
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 months ago
#5
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Murder currently doesn't apply to human foetuses. In this respect, the bill merely codifies the current common law.
True, but infanticide is recognized as murder. A fetus that's victim of infanticide is treated as a "reasonable creature" due to the circumstances. So this isn't a biology definition, but a circumstantial one. Why should I support a bill that doesn't even know its own definitions?
0
Bluestar511
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 months ago
#6
Aye
0
username257785
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 months ago
#7
Aye.
_gcx
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 months ago
#8
This could easily be interpreted liberally to outlaw abortion as murder, so nay. Independent circulatory system is not clear enough.
0
Eppeb
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 months ago
#9
Aye
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 months ago
#10
(Original post by _gcx)
This could easily be interpreted liberally to outlaw abortion as murder, so nay. Independent circulatory system is not clear enough.
Explain to me the circumstances under which a fetus does have an independent circulatory system.
0
Joel 96
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 months ago
#11
(Original post by Life_peer)
Explain to me the circumstances under which a fetus does have an independent circulatory system.
I'll bite.

The circulatory system consists of the movement of blood, nutrients and cells in the body. Around a month and a half after conception, the fetus has his/her own blood type and blood cells, which would qualify for circulatory. The word, 'indepedent', has many definitions and it comes down to which definition you're willing to go with. If you go with the definiton, "not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence", then you can say that the fetus is not an independent human being. However, if you were to go down that route, then that cancels out other human beings who are dependent on, let's say, life support, and yet they have a circulatory system just like the fetus.

The obvious objective and simplified stance on this issue is to simply change "reasonable creature" to "human being", but it's regrettable that people are so afraid to do so in a baby-hating society.
0
Joel 96
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 months ago
#12
And just to add, the criteria of "not depending on another for livelihood and subsistence" could be an issue of viability (when the fetus doesn't rely on the mother to live), so you're looking at a cut-off point of around 20 weeks. Or you could simplify this and say that the fetus is depending on the mother until the moment they pass through the vaginal canal, making abortion legal up to the point of birth. And if you're not for that, why not?

So anyway, I don't mean to derail the bill and make this into an abortion issue, but that shows the lackluster formatting and definitions at play here. Anyone who has voted aye has not taken this bill very seriously.
0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 months ago
#13
(Original post by Joel 96)
True, but infanticide is recognized as murder. A fetus that's victim of infanticide is treated as a "reasonable creature" due to the circumstances. So this isn't a biology definition, but a circumstantial one. Why should I support a bill that doesn't even know its own definitions?
Infanticide does not pertain to foetuses I don't think. The offence for killing a foetus would be 'child destruction' which you may find in this rather old Act.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 months ago
#14
(Original post by Joel 96)
I'll bite.

The circulatory system consists of the movement of blood, nutrients and cells in the body. Around a month and a half after conception, the fetus has his/her own blood type and blood cells, which would qualify for circulatory. The word, 'indepedent', has many definitions and it comes down to which definition you're willing to go with. If you go with the definiton, "not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence", then you can say that the fetus is not an independent human being. However, if you were to go down that route, then that cancels out other human beings who are dependent on, let's say, life support, and yet they have a circulatory system just like the fetus.
I asked for circumstances under which a fetus does have an independent circulatory system in order to conclude whether an abortion would be considered a murder according to this bill or not. Whichever definition of independent you choose, it can't be attributed to the fetal circulatory system because it would not function without the placenta and the female body (it is dependent on the mother and for example contains cardiac shunts which prevent normal function and close at birth), and there is a transfer of both molecules (nutrients) and cells (microchimerism) between it and the female body (it is not isolated).

As for born humans who depend on artificial circulation, I wasn't the one who suggested this definition and believe it's a poor one, so I'm not worried about the consequences, however I'd also argue that such humans do possess an independent circulatory system even if they do not have independent circulation at the moment (a machine is temporarily required to move the blood due to a pathological condition). The fetal circulatory system is different in that it would never function in its current state (especially before the 21st week) and its connection to another organism.

The obvious objective and simplified stance on this issue is to simply change "reasonable creature" to "human being", but it's regrettable that people are so afraid to do so in a baby-hating society.
:rolleyes:

I don't know how many times do you want others to explain the major risks and disadvantages of a ban on abortions to you, or why you care so much about unborn children who lack complex neural activity and would develop into little more than primitive animals without social interaction and human nurture, especially since this is not a religious position by your own admission, but these extreme accusations are getting very tiring.
Last edited by Life_peer; 7 months ago
0
Joel 96
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 months ago
#15
(Original post by Life_peer)
I asked for circumstances under which a fetus does have an independent circulatory system in order to conclude whether an abortion would be considered a murder according to this bill or not. Whichever definition of independent you choose, it can't be attributed to the fetal circulatory system because it would not function without the placenta and the female body
I concede that a fetus is not independent, on the basis of he/she being reliant on the mother's body for survival.

(Original post by Life_peer)
(it is dependent on the mother and for example contains cardiac shunts which prevent normal function and close at birth), and there is a transfer of both molecules (nutrients) and cells (microchimerism) between it and the female body (it is not isolated).
It is true that oxygen and nutrients are transferred from the mother's blood across the placenta to the fetus. The only difference between the circulatory system of an unborn child and a born one is that the lungs are not in use. The amniotic fluid makes breathing a no-go, so it's not that a fetus doesn't have an independent circulatory system that can function outside of the womb. We know very well that a fetus can survive outside of the womb from 20 weeks onwards, and yet the fetus' lungs aren't in use until the point of birth. Thus, if this definition is to be used, all unborn children are theoretically vetoed as unreasonable creatures.

(Original post by Life_peer)
As for born humans who depend on artificial circulation, I wasn't the one who suggested this definition and believe it's a poor one, so I'm not worried about the consequences, however I'd also argue that such humans do possess an independent circulatory system even if they do not have independent circulation at the moment (a machine is temporarily required to move the blood due to a pathological condition). The fetal circulatory system is different in that it would never function in its current state (especially before the 21st week) and its connection to another organism.
Right, it's hard to really see where you're arguing from here.

"a machine is temporarily required to move the blood" - You've used the word temporary. As we know, fetal development is also temporary, so no distinction to be made there. "A machine" can be translated as the mother's body, so again, no distinction.

True, a 16 week fetus' circulatory system wouldn't function outside of the womb, but neither would a patient's circulatory system without the life support. You're either arguing from the current state, or the potential/future, and you seem to be juggling both positions at once. And the connection to an organism is no different than the connection to a machine.

(Original post by Life_peer)
I don't know how many times do you want others to explain the major risks and disadvantages of a ban on abortions to you
Funny, you seemed to be convinced that my position is irrational, yet I received no valid rebuttals to my arguments in the last abortion debate. People do explain to me their positions, which I always try to hear out fairly (rather than treat them with the same disdain you afford me), and yet I have never heard one justification for ending the life of a human being, other than the same consequentialist sophistry that's thrown time and time again (the mother's life at risk, the baby will have a poor quality of life, life-threatening diseases, etc). It's all nonsense.

(Original post by Life_peer)
or why you care so much about unborn children who lack complex neural activity and would develop into little more than primitive animals without social interaction and human nurture, especially since this is not a religious position by your own admission, but these extreme accusations are getting very tiring.
We all have our personal reasons.

Judging the value of human beings based on their capacity for social interaction is a fundamental error and, well, pretty dangerous.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#16
One Aye has been added for DayneD89
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#17
Two Ayes have been removed due to non-MPs voting (Volkerbund1933 and seanladd12)
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#18
The Ayes to the right, 31
The Noes to the left 9

I think the Ayes have it, the Ayes have it! Unlock!
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Do you give blood?

Yes (69)
7.97%
I used to but I don't now (24)
2.77%
No, but I want to start (319)
36.84%
No, I am unable to (220)
25.4%
No, I chose not to (234)
27.02%

Watched Threads

View All