B1547 – Life Sentence Bill 2020 (Second Reading) Watch

This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
B1547 – Life Sentence Bill 2020 (Second Reading), Glaz MP



Life Sentence Bill 2020 (Second Reading)







An Act requiring all life sentences to be carried out fully.





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, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—



1: Life Sentencing.

(1) All life sentences must be fully carried out.

(2) For the purposes of this Act:—

(2) a. "fully carried out" means that the criminal may not be released from jail until they die.



2: Exemption

(1) In the case that any new evidence comes about, which would declare the criminal innocent, they will be released effective immediately



4: Extent

This Act extends to the United Kingdom.



5: Commencement

The provisions of this Act come into force on January 1 2025.

The government shall allocate appropriate funding for the expansion of prisons required to fulfill this act.



6: Short Title

This Act may be cited as the Life Sentence Bill 2020.





Notes

Changes have been made to the exemptions, allowing for immediate release if the circumstance arises which renders the criminal innocent

Changes have been made to the commencement date, allowing for government funding of prisons to allow for their expansion

0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
The fundamental issues remain unchanged, prison expansion was never really an issue
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
Since the second reading changes don't alter my opinion on it being fairly counter-productive for it to be compulsory for life sentences to be for life, I will still be voting Nay in division.
0
SnowMiku
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
I will be voting Aye when this goes to division, still agree on the main points and the exception addition is certainly welcome.
0
Bailey14
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
I do not see any sufficient changes that can change my opinion on the bill.

I will still oppose it should it go to division.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by SnowMiku)
I will be voting Aye when this goes to division, still agree on the main points and the exception addition is certainly welcome.
Except the exception is nothing new, it is a statement of how the legal system works.

The only actual change is to delay it coming into force, completely unnecessarily. It still demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of life sentences.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
This does nothing to allay my concerns from the first reading. I still oppose it.
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
I don't see the point in legislating something that the legal system already does. It seems like governance for the pure sake of it, and I see no legitimate reason to support it.
1
Cabin19
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
I disagree if someone at the age of 20 is given life for something it's irresponsible to think they'll still have the same mindset and be a danger to society later on in life like at 70+
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
Aye.
1
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
The funding pledge shouldn't be in section 5, it should probably be in section 3, since section 3 doesn't seem to exist.

I'd probably abstain if I were voting in division.
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by 04MR17)
The funding pledge shouldn't be in section 5, it should probably be in section 3, since section 3 doesn't seem to exist.

I'd probably abstain if I were voting in division.
Why is there no section 3 :ninja:
I thought I put a section 3 :holmes:
I need to stop writing bills :hide:
0
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Glaz)
Why is there no section 3 :ninja:
I thought I put a section 3 :holmes:
I need to stop writing bills :hide:
Definitely not. Improvement comes with experience.

As for this, I just don't support the fundamentals of the bill so I will be against in division.
2
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
Definitely not. Improvement comes with experience.

As for this, I just don't support the fundamentals of the bill so I will be against in division.
Thanks

Very well :sadnod:
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
Opposed on the same basis as before - nice to see some of the proposed changes have been included though!
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#16
This item has entered cessation.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#17
Division, clear the Lobbies!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
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

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (479)
66.44%
No (242)
33.56%

Watched Threads

View All